this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
281 points (95.5% liked)
Anarchist Memes
1200 readers
1 users here now
This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree with you there. My point is that a government is not needed to have private property. Governments are inherently violent, but you can be violent without a government.
Where is the line drawn between a government and a legitimized systemic form of violence?
There is no line, legitimate violence is just one of the services a government is expected to perform
It's only "expected" to perform other services because its violence prevents us from doing those things apart from it.
If you want to pave roads, build bridges, and run charities, the government won't stop you
I'm pretty sure all 3 of those require government permission and oversight. At least in the US.
As already pointed out, it absolutely will stop you. Also, try doing any of those things on land claimed by private entities such as capitalists, and watch how quickly the state's goons arrest and/or shoot you.
Government is top down.
Not all forms of violence are useful for protecting private property.
Again, no one said that. All I said was that violence was needed for protecting private property. Not that all forms of violence is useful for it.
You're really bad at logic. "You can be violent without a government" does not imply you can necessarily protect private property without a government. Because being violent isn't enough to protect private property. Only certain forms of violence are (forms which you haven't done anything to show can be performed without a government).
Jesus Christ, I’m not bad at logic, you’re just an idiot. A really really confident idiot.
Violence is needed to protect private property.
Government is useful for protecting private property. This is because governments are inherently violent.
Does this mean that governments are the only way of protecting private property? Absolutely not. A dude with a gun can protect private property.
Does this mean that all forms of violence are useful for protecting private property? Absolutely not. But again, a dude with a gun can do a fine job protecting private property.
I’m not trying to debate you man, you’re an annoying debate lord, for the love of Christ fuck off.
OK liberal.
You have no clue what private property even is, dude. It's not simply some kind of thing someone claims for their own. Private property is literally property which is used to exploit other people's labor and material needs. Your toothbrush is not private property. Your car is not private property. The house you live in is not private property. That land you rent to someone else just so they can live is private property. That factory you force people to work in so they can put food in their mouths because they have no access to land or other sources of sustenance...those are private property.
So yeah: good fucking luck protecting land and infrastructure you don't have the capacity to even use on your own with a gun. Again, NO: the capacity to do violence, alone, is NOT sufficient to protect private property. You need a lot more than that. Your ability to beat your wife doesn't make you able to patrol a large swath of agricultural land and make sure nobody encroaches on it. Your ability to shoot someone doesn't make you capable of keeping workers out of a factory that is rightfully their collective property by virtue of the value of the blood, sweat, and tears they used to build and run that factory, especially when they have the capacity to do violence themselves and there's no state to keep them from exercising it in self-defense.
You fucking ignorant dope.
You are wrong. Literally just objectively wrong. Stop showing your ass. Go read some therory and maybe some history. Governments has never been the only way to protect private property. Private militias, private security forces, and other forms of non government violence have always been used.
You are just trying to posture and distract from the fact that you asserted one idiot with a gun can protect private property (thus demonstrating that fact that no: you don't even know what private property is.), you ignorant, liberal moron.
An idiot with a gun can protect private property. If someone owns land that they own for the sake of generating profit, ie private property, and they protect it by grabbing a gun to keep people off of it, that is literally using a gun to protect private property. Saying that that situation is impossible is fucking moronic. I’ve never seen someone so confidently incorrect.
It’s ok man. Reading is hard. There was no distractions or posturing. Go reread the last comment and try your best to reply to bullet point number 3. Come to terms that you were wrong and move on. You just look like a dumbass
So you're just like, quadrupling down or so on the fact that you have no idea what private property is now. And want to project onto other people confident incorrectness.
Clearly there's no point continuing this with an ignorant liberal troll. GFYS.
If someone owns land with the intent of exploiting labor for profit that land is private property.
If they buy a gun to keep people off that property and personally patrol it to ensure that’s property’s safely they are protecting private property.
If they do it without the use of a government or a governing agency they are protecting private property without a government.
Therefore it is possible to protect private property without a government.
If you can’t comprehend that, you’re a moron. You don’t need a central government to protect private property, you just need violence, albeit the correct form of violence. Next time do some reading and learn a few things before you try to correct someone.
So like I said earlier, a dude with a gun can protect private property.
If I say something is mine and you disagree, a violence happens and whoever is left standing has private property. QED violence enforced property.
That's not what private property is. You can read my other comment if you care, or you can just go on feeling confident that you were right in swooping in and backing up the ignorant raving of some idiot liberal. I don't really care. 🤷
First, you are a very unpleasant person. Second, that's a weirdly specific definition of private property. Last, if I need to exploit other peoples labor to derive value to have private property, and we're using violence to do it, then we just invented slavery again.
You being wrong makes me unpleasant now. LOL. Okay. I'd say that fuckers who jump into to defend ignorant liberals in arnarchist forums are unpleasant, personally.
It's the definition that's been used by leftists since the advent of capitalism, and perhaps before. Yes, liberals' attempts to disarm our language by using to mean anything that's not owned by the state has done a number on your brain, making it sound "weird" to ignorant, propagandized fools. Can't argue with that.
Yes, capitalism is wage slavery. Correct. It has somewhat different characteristics from chattel slavery (which capitalism still uses when convenient, such as in the U.S. prison-industrial complex), but slavery it is nonetheless.